Re: [Ianaplan] Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-01

[Andrei Robachevsky <[e-mail]>]

On 25 October 2014 01:35, Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> "The protocol parameter registries are the product of IETF work.”
>
> This seems like an under-specified answer. For example, the IP address
> space registries could certainly be considered to be the product of IETF
> work. But I did not think it was the intent to cover them in this
> transition plan document. I apologize if there has been discussion of this
> on the list that I missed, but I feel like the answer to this question is
> specifically our opportunity to explain exactly what is covered by this
> particular transition plan, and “the product of IETF work” is a rather
> vague answer.
>
>
> Alissa, I agree that it is under-specified.

There was some prior discussion of the point about the IP address space and
I thought that a general agreement was that the IETF created the numbering
space and identified part of it (global unicast) for allocation via the
Internet Number Registry System. Which to me means that it indeed should be
considered as a protocol parameter registry. And IMO should be explicitly
specified here, not just in the "overlap" section.


Andrei